90% of desktop users use an OS which supports DPI scaling and doesn't have this problem. The remaining 10% have intentionally chosen to buy a computer where ordinary peripherals like monitors or mice don't quite work right by design, and instead have to remain within an "ecosystem" of products primarily from the same vendor.

In other words - Macintosh's "retina standard" is the issue. Use a computer which is fit for purpose.

Until recently, you had to make trade-offs between physical dimensions, pixel density, and refresh rate. Almost nobody prioritized pixel density. But now DisplayPort and HDMI have enough bandwidth that you can have 120 Hz 5k/6k displays, so maybe resolutions higher than 4k will finally become common.

I use a similar monitor to this and I don’t notice the difference between 4K+ at 28” and the Retina display on my MacBook. The difference between the 4K and a 27” QHD that I sometimes use at work is quite noticeable.

What is going on with this, is 5k not going to happen ?

In theory, the following things:

The 3:2 ratio suits reading and editing text, because our eyes have trouble following in lines of text that are too long (think about how a paperback page is shaped, or A4 or letter paper). The counter-argument is that 16:9 is actually better because it's functionally two 8:9 panels if you split the screen.

The light on the back reduces eye-strain in dark environments by lighting a wall (if there is one) behind the screen.

Less reveolutionary is automatic brightness adjustment and the dark/light controls, but they might be nice.

It basically just folds into one package a couple of things that are good practice for text editing and reading.

The 3:2 aspect ratio gives you more vertical space than a 16:9 ratio or similar. The good-for-coders idea is that you can see more "pages" of code without scrolling, but also without meaningfully decreasing the length of lines you can see, since it's still plenty wide.

The Framework 13" laptop has a 3:2 screen. After almost 2 years using it, I... kinda like it? I think I would agree that I can see more code per screen. But on the occasion when I'm using another laptop, with a more standard 16:9 or 16:10 screen, it feels more "normal" somehow.

It’s 3:2, which historically people said it’s “better” for coding because it allows more vertical space.

Personally I find bigger monitor available today is more than enough vertically. Horizontal space is actually quite useful to be able to put things side by side.

I have a 3/2 28” monitor - while it looks nice - the ratio really doesn’t make much of a difference.

3:2 aspect ratio

I put little square speakers under each side of the monitor. Fixed the vibrations pretty much fully

Obviously only an issue for Americans, but the Huawei Mateview isn't widely available due to the ban on Huawei products. It could be imported grey-market, but only at slightly inflated prices and without any warranty protection.

The BenQ monitor will be commercially available in the US.

Everything is VESA mountable if you try hard enough and can get 3d printed parts. Source: my Mateviews are

Have to be able to see my compiler errors come in at true speed

Vast majority of 120+ Hz displays are 1080p only. That's for gaming.

4k at 120 Hz will need DisplayPort 2.0 and a powerful GPU to provide that bandwidth (40 Gbit/sec).

Practically useless for its intended purpose (coding). Will increase the cost for no benefit. Waste of money.

All of the ultrawides I've looked at have poor text clarity. That's one of the things this monitor boasts, but there's no real measurement for text clarity. RTings.com is the only site I know of that has a measurement for it.

https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews/samsung/odyssey-neo-g...

Yeah. I usually code with a 3 column, 2 row split view on a 4k.

Perfect for component.ts, component.ng.html, component.scss, and component_test.ts all to be open at once...

The RD280U is 4k. The cheaper, smaller RD240Q is 2560x1600.

> Too bad 1:1 display isn't common.

Do any exist at all that are being sold right now?

Where are you seeing 2560x1600? They are advertising 4k

It's like a tenth the price of an Apple monitor.